[Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits

Rovastar rovastar at hotmail.com
Fri Nov 21 15:04:21 UTC 2014


I am not a fan of reverting in general. Sure there are some mistakes here
but surely not even the most steadfast old timers here think that *all* of
these changes are wrong. Maybe *shrug* it is 50/50 here right/wrong.

And I disagree with the *only* way to deal with is to revert. You could
simply do no revert and change them individually. Not "There is a mistake in
the changeset on my patch therefore it should all be reverted"...imagine the
carnage if I started revert entire changesets where I found the tiniest of
errors/typos.

Reverting and some of the over zealous initial comments here just sound like
"this is my patch! how dare you change it I am perfect I have been doing
this for years!!1!!one!!" and "in our area we do this! we/I will change it
if it needs too not you!!"

I think it is better and more welcoming to new users to not revert and if
the wiki is "wrong" to have clearer guidelines if required in our wiki.
That, like it or not, is what user do look at, especially new users.

I would argue that we need a more general UK guide to this rather than the
"in my patch we do it this way/ our wiki is just a guide" approach. Again
imagine if I started a whole new tagging scheme for highway= for my local
patch. To argue "well it is my local patch I can do what I want" just
wouldn't wash but that seems to be what we are doing here with the
city/suburb situation we have different areas of the country will have
different rules.

Going forward I think wikipedia provides a reasonably good guide if they are
area or a distinct town, villages, etc.

I urge all involved (and obviously not just anyone can change these only an
elite few) to look at all of these. I know some here, somewhat ironically,
don't like crowd sourced information like wiki(pedia) but many find it the
most useful and it is a public consensus nearly all of the time. It is what
I use for reference for tagging villages, etc up and down the country. If
wikipedia is wrong you know what you can do (change it! not f*** off).

So 
Hayes, Hillingdon = town
Wimbledon, London = suburb, not a town
Sutton Coldfield, Brum= "town that forms a suburb" I would go with town.
Jewellery Quarter, Brum = not a village so suburb or suitable subset of.
etc

The wikipedia approach is something that many people can understand and is
"quotable" and a "reference point". Reference points are useful for
situations like this.
I would be curious for any major objections for this approach.
I would be very interested to so were any of those differ to what we
"should" do and I think individually each case would warrant further debate.

I think this would be better then a, IMHO, horrible one man band "use
place=town for places with a sizeable retail centre" random rule, etc.

I am not sure the "on the ground" rule applies here as much as you think. I
know it is banged on about as some sort of self preservation for some. But
remember we do not always do this despite what some may claim. For example,
all admin boundaries do not have the entire boundary line visable" on the
ground".
A sign saying "--> town centre" isn't often good enough if more "official"
sources say that it is not.

John




--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Suburbs-in-London-Brum-big-edits-tp5824820p5825023.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



More information about the Talk-GB mailing list